Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill said that seasonal workers already earn a comfortable annual income. Since the vote on my Motion M-222, nothing has changed with the employment insurance program.

Does the Prime Minister share the view of the Canadian Alliance member? If not, what is he waiting for to make the changes he is advocating to help Canadians? As far as I am concerned, whether it is the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative or the Liberal Party, there is no difference at all.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member thinks that the only solution for seasonal workers is more employment insurance.

As I have said time and again, if we find there are indications that we can be more efficient with employment insurance and that changes are necessary we will make them.

It is not that nothing has changed. The Minister of Labour and I have visited his community. We have community organizations working diligently and finding successful their work in providing and creating new opportunities for work for seasonal employees. I wish the hon. member would put some focus on that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Infrastructure said that the government priority was with water and air quality. She deliberately left out post-secondary education.

Why does the minister ignore the report by the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges saying that there is a $1.2 billion need for urgent repairs to universities? Will she put that money into educational infrastructure now?

Lucienne RobillardPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, I remind the opposition member that, if we have an infrastructure program for municipalities, it is because the Federation of Canadian Municipalities asked for it, and so did the premiers of every province in Canada.

In that context, the government made it a priority for the whole country to have basic infrastructures that allow us to improve water quality and air quality for our fellow citizens.

I do not deny the fact that there may be other needs but, at this time, this is the priority that is—

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. What is happening in federal penitentiaries is unconscionable.

Clifford Olson raped and murdered 11 Canadian children. Yet while in prison he was able to have access to child pornography. He was able to enter an international poetry contest. Now we learn that he has been able to apply for and is receiving federal GST rebates.

Will the solicitor general immediately look into Mr. Olson's activities and put an immediate stop to this nonsense?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act (technical amendments), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I sat and listened to my colleague make his speech on the cruelty to animals act. He raised what I think was a very legitimate concern of cattle owners about protecting the age old practice of branding, dehorning and vaccinating cattle.

In the midst of his speech we heard the backbench heckling on the other side of the House, in particular the member for Bruce—Grey. That was interesting because Bruce—Grey is one of the greatest cattle producing areas of Canada. It is well renowned for feedlots and for the raising and producing of cattle.

It is curious the member would not come forward to debate the issue in front of the microphone. Far enough from the microphone he insisted that the act provides protection for cattle producers against prosecution for cruelty and pain inflicted upon animals during the dehorning process.

Since my colleague made the presentation I obtained a copy of the act and reread it once again. I have read it several times, but I read it again in an effort to find where, even in the vaguest sense, there was some protection provided for the agricultural producer as the member suggested. I have not been able to find even the slightest or vaguest reference. I do not believe that reference is there.

Would the member comment on that and elaborate further on his concerns for the farmer and the cattle producer?

Madam Speaker, in the midst of all the efforts of the Liberals to jumble bills together and bring in different things the way they do, it is a bill that contains some really good stuff and some really confusing stuff. I have spoken about this in the past.

What they are doing is moving cruelty to animals out of civil law where it really belongs and into the criminal code.

These amendments would protect harvesters, cattlemen and other people who make a living raising animals. If these changes are not made, every law-abiding cattle owner and every law-abiding chicken farmer will be subjected to becoming a criminal under this act. That is the way it is. That is the way it exists in its present form.

They should do a little more thinking about what they have done by taking this out of the civil code and putting it into the criminal code. They should think a little more about the predicament in which they will put a lot of people. Instead of heckling so much, they should listen to what is being said. Then maybe they would not make the silly mistakes they constantly make.

I am beginning to think they are not mistakes. When one starts to jumble up an omnibus bill like this one, is there a purpose behind it? Is there a strategy? Or, is it just plain Liberal nonsense? I tend to believe the latter.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to ask a short question of the hon. member for Wild Rose.

Seeing that he studied the legislation, I am wondering if there is any protection for the farmer who gets kicked by a milk cow or kicked in the teeth by a horse. Who is looking after the interest of the farmer and the protection of these poor people?

Madam Speaker, apparently, as I see it, humans are totally excluded from the bill. Having received the back hoof of a milk cow once or twice in my life, I know it is pretty painful. It could be classified as pretty cruel.

I know what my hon. colleague is thinking. The people in the business of raising cattle, sheep and livestock and dealing with other animals know the difference between cruelty and what is proper.

The government should not be so quick to draw up criminal code legislation that gives us the idea that farmers and ranchers do not know anything and therefore it is up to politicians in Ottawa to do the protecting. My goodness, with all the lawyers from Bay Street we are facing a real problem. I am not sure they know which end of a cow the milk comes out of.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Wild Rose. He raised a very interesting point with regard to what happens in the House when the government decides to bring in a piece of legislation.

It has the habit of introducing a part of the bill, which really has nothing to do with the rest of the bill, for the House to vote upon. When we try to separate a bill it absolutely refuses to do it. This bill is another example of what happens. I would like the hon. member to comment on that if he could.

This piece of legislation deals with cruelty to animals. Another part of the same bill deals with disarming peace officers. In no way can I make sense of this at all. It seems that we are trying to lump the disarming of a peace officer with cruelty to animals. It makes no sense to me or to a number of people with whom I have talked. If the hon. member could comment on that I would appreciate it.